DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 5/23/2025, in which claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 5/23/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6- This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Control system in claims 1, 11,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8- Claims 2, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 2, 14, which read “… a vacuum condition of the deposition chamber in the detection chamber…”, and “… is positioned to irradiate the thin-film in the second deposition chamber”, respectively, the underlined clauses appear to present antecedence issues.
For examination purposes, the second deposition chamber is considered as the “second chamber” of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
10- Claims 1-5, 8, 11-12, 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (PGPUB No. 2005/0006590) in view of Hiatt et al. (US 5963315).
As to claims 11/1, 2, 5, 8/12, Harrison teaches a system, and its method of use (Abstract, Figs. 1-39), comprising: a first chamber (sample chamber) configured to deposit a thin-film on a wafer (250 in Figs. 2, 5, and 810 on 800 in Fig. 8; see ¶ 100); a second chamber (instrument chamber) communicatively coupled to the first chamber (Figs. 2, 5, 10-11, 32-38) and including: a radiation source (210 or 510 or 1010 or 1110 or equivalents) configured to irradiate the thin-film with excitation light (¶ 67-70); and an emissions sensor and (claim 12) wherein the emissions sensor is an ultraviolet light sensor (Abstract, ¶ 14, 79 for ex.; VUV detector 230/240 or equivalents) configured to detect an emission spectrum from the wafer responsive to the excitation light (¶ 67-70); and a control system (290) coupled to the radiation source and the emissions sensor and configured to detect contamination of the thin-film by analyzing the emission spectrum (Figs. 1, 14 and ¶ 103, 110-111, 125).
Harrison does not teach expressly (claim 11) wherein to stop thin-film deposition processes in the first chamber responsive to detecting contamination of the thin-film or (claim 5) further comprising halting operation of the first chamber responsive to detecting contamination of the thin-film; (claims 8/12) wherein the radiation source is a laser; (Claim 2) further comprising maintaining a vacuum condition of the deposition chamber in the detection chamber while irradiating the thin- film with excitation light.
However, Harrisson discloses uses vacuum chambers in the chambers (Fig. 2 and ¶ 69, 72 for ex.). Moreover, Hiatt does teach in an analogous art further comprising halting operation of the thin-film deposition chamber responsive to detecting contamination of the thin-film. (See Col 2 Lines 8-11, Col 5 Lines 1-7); wherein the radiation source is a laser (Abstract, Fig. 4; laser source 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Harrison further comprising maintaining a vacuum condition of the deposition chamber in the detection chamber while irradiating the thin- film with excitation light, and in view of Hiatt’s suggestions so that to stop thin-film deposition processes in the first chamber responsive to detecting contamination of the thin-film; or further comprising halting operation of the first chamber responsive to detecting contamination of the thin-film; wherein the radiation source is a laser, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the production of contaminant-free thin films.
Moreover, Harrison teaches/discloses:
(claims 3-4) wherein detecting contamination includes detecting oxidation of the thin-film; 4. The method of claim 3, further comprising detecting, with the control system, a leak in the first chamber based on detecting oxidation of the thin-film (¶ 110, 127; oxidation in a vacuum environment is obviously indicative of vacuum leaks).
(claim 14) wherein the radiation source (210) is positioned to irradiate the thin-film (250) in the second deposition chamber (204 inside 202, or 504 inside 502).
11- Claims 10, 16-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (PGPUB No. 2005/0006590) in view of Furuya et al. (PGPUB 2020/0033820), and further in view of Budiarto et al. (PGPUB 2016/0181134).
As to claim 18, Harrison teaches a method, comprising: depositing a thin-film on a wafer in a first deposition chamber; irradiating, with a radiation source in the second chamber, the wafer with excitation light; detecting, with an emissions sensor in the second chamber, an emission spectrum from the wafer responsive to the excitation light; and detecting whether or not the thin-film is contaminated by analyzing the emission spectrum with an analysis model (See rejection of claims 1 and 11).
Harrison does not teach expressly the method comprising training, with a machine learning process utilizing data from a plurality of spectrums detected under a plurality of contamination and non-contamination conditions, an analysis model to detect contamination of thin-films; transferring the wafer to a second chamber communicatively coupled to the first chamber.
However, Furuya does teach, in an analogous art, further comprising training an
analysis model (305) with a machine learning (3) process to detect contamination of the
thin-film; and (Abstract, ¶ 25; Figs. 1, 3) detecting (303) contamination of the thin-film with the analysis model; the machine learning process that detects the characteristics of a film deposited on a base layer. The detection of contamination is included in the characteristics of the film deposited on the base layer (Abstract, ¶ 25, 72 Lines 1-11; Figs. 1, 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one with ordinary skills in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Harrison further
comprising training, with a machine learning process utilizing data from a plurality of spectrums detected under a plurality of contamination and non-contamination conditions, an analysis model to detect contamination of thin-films, with the advantage taught by Furuya to predict the characteristics of a film deposited by a film deposition apparatus based on targeted base characteristic data indicating a characteristic of a base layer serving as a target for formation of the film, using learning data that includes the base characteristic data and the film characteristic data (¶ 10).
The combination still does not teach expressly the method comprising transferring the wafer to a second chamber communicatively coupled to the first chamber.
However, Budiarto does teach, in an analogous art, transferring the wafer (104) from the film deposition chamber (110) to a detection chamber (111) (¶ 30; Fig. 1); further comprising maintaining a vacuum condition of the deposition chamber in the detection chamber while irradiating the thin-film with excitation light (¶ 32; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one with ordinary skills in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Harrison/Furuya according to Budiarto’s suggestions wherein transferring the wafer to a second chamber communicatively coupled to the first chamber, with the advantage of detecting any contaminant on the wafer under test in an ideal environment for manufacturing.
As to claims 16/10, 17, the combination of Harrison and Hiatt teaches system of claim 11 and method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the control system includes an analysis model trained with a machine learning process to detect contamination of thin- films based on the emission spectrum; (claim 17) wherein the analysis model includes a neural network.
However, Furuya does teach, in an analogous art, further comprising using a neural network (Abstract, ¶ 79) and training an analysis model (305) with a machine learning (3) process to detect contamination of the thin-film; and (Abstract, ¶ 25; Figs. 1, 3) detecting (303) contamination of the thin-film with the analysis model; the machine learning process that detects the characteristics of a film deposited on a base layer. The detection of contamination is included in the characteristics of the film deposited on the base layer (Abstract, ¶ 25, 72 Lines 1-11; Figs. 1, 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one with ordinary skills in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the apparatus and method of Harrison and Hiatt further comprising the control system includes an analysis model trained with a machine learning process to detect contamination of thin- films based on the emission spectrum; wherein the analysis model includes a neural network, with the advantage taught by Furuya to predict the characteristics of a film deposited by a film deposition apparatus based on targeted base characteristic data indicating a characteristic of a base layer serving as a target for formation of the film, using learning data that includes the base characteristic data and the film characteristic data (¶ 10).
12- Claims 7, 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison and Hiatt om view of Stiff-Roberts et al. (PGPUB 20170282214).
As to claims 13/7, the combination of Harrison and Hiatt teaches system of claim 11 and method of claim 1.
Moreover, Harrison teaches wherein the emissions sensor is a photoelectron spectroscopy detector (Abstract, ¶ 14, 79 for ex.; detecting module 230/240 or equivalents).
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the radiation source is an x-ray source.
However, Stiff-Roberts does teach in an analogous art wherein the excitation light includes X-ray light, wherein detecting the emission spectrum includes detecting a photoelectron spectrum. (See 028, 087 Lines 01-04; Fig. 19, 24).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one with ordinary skills in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Harrison/Furuya according to Stiff-Roberts’ suggestions wherein the radiation source is an x-ray source, with the advantage of increasing the precision/resolution of the thin-film measurements.
13- Claims 6, 9, 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison and Hiatt om view of Potyrailo (PGPUB 2002/0173922).
As to claims 6, 15/9, the combination of Harrison and Hiatt teaches system of claim 11 and method of claim 1.
Moreover, Harrison teaches (claim 6) wherein the excitation light includes ultraviolet light (Abstract, ¶ 14, 70 for ex.).
The combination does not teach expressly comprising a tube including the radiation source and the emissions sensor; (claim 6) wherein detecting the emission spectrum includes detecting a photoluminescence spectrum.
However, Potyrailo teaches, in the same field of endeavor, using transducer, i.e. tube ( 12 in association with lements 22, 30, 32, 40). Moreover, Potyrailo teaches detecting the emission spectrum includes detecting a photoluminescence spectrum (¶ 31, 35, 119).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one with ordinary skills in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Harrison/Hiatt according to Potyrailo’s suggestions so that it comprises a tube including the radiation source and the emissions sensor, with the advantage of integrating and compacting the measurement module and facilitating its disposition with respect to deposition chambers; and wherein detecting the emission spectrum includes detecting a photoluminescence spectrum, with the advantage of thoroughly measuring the thin-film spectral emissions.
14- Claim 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison, Furuya in view of Budiarto and further in view of Tanaka (JP 3986631).
As to claims 19-20, the combination of Harrison, Furuya and Budiarto teaches the method of claim 18.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the thin-film includes titanium nitride, wherein detecting contamination of the titanium nitride includes detecting that the emission spectrum includes emissions characteristic of titanium oxide; (claim 20) further comprising depositing the thin-film over a semiconductor nanosheet structure.
However, Tanaka does teach in an analogous art wherein the thin-film includes titanium nitride, wherein detecting contamination of the titanium nitride includes detecting that the emission spectrum includes emissions characteristic of titanium oxide (¶ 1, 16-17; Fig. 1); further comprising depositing the thin-film over a semiconductor nanosheet structure (¶ 1, 66, 94; depositing films on semiconductors is considered with nanoscale layers being obvious in the semiconductor field; See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one with ordinary skills in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Harrison/Furuya/Budiarto according to Tanaka’s suggestions the thin-film includes titanium nitride, wherein detecting contamination of the titanium nitride includes detecting that the emission spectrum includes emissions characteristic of titanium oxide; further comprising depositing the thin-film over a semiconductor nanosheet structure, with the advantage of to accurately measuring the titanium nitride film due to its usefulness as a diffusion prevention film, adhesion layer film or antireflection film constituting a semiconductor device, a superconducting device, various electronic components, and various sensors.
Relevant Prior art
US 20030146109, US 20050196892, US 20180010243 appear to teach most the elements of the claimed apparatus and its method of use but fail the claimed invention as a whole
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights